Brandon Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery
828 F.3d 488
6th Cir.2016Background
- Brandon (U.S. citizen) and Sabine Hefferan (German citizen) are married and domiciled in Germany; Brandon underwent surgery in Germany in 2012 and suffered alleged injuries requiring many follow-up surgeries.
- The Hefferans sued Ethicon Endo-Surgery (manufactured the stapler in Mexico; Ethicon is incorporated and headquartered in Ohio) and Johnson & Johnson in U.S. federal court (originally filed in District of New Jersey, transferred to Southern District of Ohio).
- Ethicon moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Germany; the district court granted the motion and the Hefferans appealed.
- Key legal questions centered on (1) the amount of deference owed to the Hefferans’ choice of a U.S. forum given their long-term German domicile, (2) whether Germany is an adequate alternative forum (including whether German law bars Sabine’s loss-of-consortium claim), and (3) the proper balancing of Gulf Oil private- and public-interest factors.
- The district court concluded Germany is an adequate forum, German law likely governs substantive claims (including Sabine’s loss-of-consortium claim), and public- and private-interest factors supported dismissal; the Sixth Circuit affirmed and read the dismissal as without prejudice to refiling in Germany.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deference to forum choice | Hefferans (U.S. plaintiff) deserve strong deference to their chosen U.S. forum | Ethicon: Hefferans are domiciled in Germany for 12 years so less deference is warranted | Court: Less deference appropriate given plaintiffs’ long-term German domicile; district court did not err |
| Adequacy of Germany as alternative forum | Germany’s procedures (no jury, limited discovery, lower damages, no punitive damages, no loss-of-consortium for surviving spouse) make it inadequate | Ethicon: Germany is adequate; it consents to service and can provide a remedy; New Jersey choice-of-law would likely apply German law anyway | Court: Germany is an adequate forum; even if Sabine’s consortium claim differs, Ohio court would apply New Jersey choice-of-law and likely German substantive law, so no unfair deprivation of remedy |
| Choice-of-law for loss-of-consortium | Hefferans: U.S. forum would apply U.S. law allowing consortium recovery | Ethicon: Contacts point to Germany; German law likely governs claims | Held: New Jersey’s most-significant-relationship analysis would likely point to Germany; German law governs consortium claim |
| Balancing Gulf Oil factors (practical/ public interests) | Hefferans: U.S. forum better for discovery, contingency fees, and practical access to U.S. law and damages | Ethicon: Witnesses, medical evidence, locus of injury, and German interest favor Germany; discovery burdens and witness costs make U.S. forum inconvenient | Held: District court reasonably weighed factors (private and public interests favor Germany overall); dismissal for forum non conveniens affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (forum non conveniens framework and deference to forum choice)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (public- and private-interest factors for forum non conveniens)
- Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517 (need to scrutinize relevance/critical nature of evidence for access-to-proof inquiry)
- Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d 867 (6th Cir.) (deference sliding scale for U.S. plaintiffs with attenuated U.S. contacts)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (choice-of-law follows transferor forum on voluntary transfer)